Posted on 03/30/2004 8:10:08 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Animals are property, therefore consent is not required. Similarly, if I marry my car or my house, consent is not required.
"There is no Constitutional right to abort a child or to sodomize your neighbor."
The USSC has never said there were such absolute rights. Both abortion & sodomy can be & are regulated by our States, within the constitutional guidelines of our BOR's.
These "rights" follow logically from the following statement:
"the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In other words, anything goes.
That is simply a perception, [more hype] about a stupid turn of phrase.
Bruen admits it when he writes:
The Supreme Court has created a perception otherwise, but it was unprincipled in doing so, and we would be justified in tossing it out on its ear. James G. Bruen, Jr. is an attorney.
Bruen is an unprincipled attorney, imo, seeing that he should know that our constitutional principles have not been violated by the court in either case he cites.
-- His hyperbole is irresponsible, and he is close to violating his own oath to protect & defend the US Constitution.
That's what I was getting at, specifically, where the line should be drawn.
It seems to me that this "stupid turn of phrase" is at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision, and many SCOTUS decisions since then. The Court doesn't serve the natural law that is written on the human heart and, therefore, doesn't serve a document based on the natural law. It serves no master. It does what it can get away with, particularly regarding morals issues. I think Bruen is correct in this.
I thought that was the one where the two guys get stuck wrestling forever in a spinning tunnel. I hate when that happens.
"There is no Constitutional right to abort a child or to sodomize your neighbor."
The USSC has never said there were such absolute rights. Both abortion & sodomy can be & are regulated by our States, within the constitutional guidelines of our BOR's.
These "rights" follow logically from the following statement:
"the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In other words, anything goes.
That is simply a perception, [more hype] about a stupid turn of phrase.
Bruen admits it when he writes:
The Supreme Court has created a perception otherwise, but it was unprincipled in doing so, and we would be justified in tossing it out on its ear. James G. Bruen, Jr. is an attorney.
Bruen is an unprincipled attorney, imo, seeing that he should know that our constitutional principles have not been violated by the court in either case he cites.
-- His hyperbole is irresponsible, and he is close to violating his own oath to protect & defend the US Constitution.
It seems to me that this "stupid turn of phrase" is at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision, and many SCOTUS decisions since then.
I don't buy it. You, [and Bruen] are cynically using a stupidly written line to 'tar baby' the issue.
The Court doesn't serve the natural law that is written on the human heart and, therefore, doesn't serve a document based on the natural law.
The USSC is charged with serving our constitution, not your vision of "natural law".
It serves no master. It does what it can get away with, particularly regarding morals issues. I think Bruen is correct in this.
Yep, we all have opinions.. But our actions on 'moral' issues are limited by our Constitution.
Bruen wants to "toss out" that principle, "on its ear"..
Do you?
I'm not denying that the scope of the market is global. I'm denying that that fact gives Congress the power to regulate local transactions in that market. What you're essentially trying to argue is that Congress, by virtue of its grant of power to regulate interstate commerce, has the power to regulate things that affect interstate commerce. Not so. Never in any other field of governance has the power to regulate an activity been understood to mean the power to regulate things that affect said activity. That's purely an invention of modern courts.
Only those things which are in essence elements of the market itself. So if it's a hot dog market, part of the food market which has interstate scope, Congress has the power to regulate all of the elements that have an effect. There is no requirement, nor is there any justification to artificially dissembling the market into local and regional parts. If an individual wishes to make and eat their own hot dogs they can do so w/o following regs. However, they are not allowed to market them, w/o following the regs, because the regs apply to the elements of the market itself.
" Never in any other field of governance has the power to regulate an activity been understood to mean the power to regulate things that affect said activity. That's purely an invention of modern courts."
You are refering to extraneous effects. Effects which are not an integral part of the market. You are correct, there is no logical justification for claiming extraneous market forces are subject to regulation under the commerce clause.
Indeed it was. Unlike the clause on foreign commerce, the only real purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to take the power out of the hands of the states. As Madison explained:
Yet it is very certain that it [the interstate commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Doesn't matter how you limit it. The fact remains that you're still claiming that activities (not all activities, necessarily) which are not interstate commerce in themselves, yet have an effect on interstate commerce, can come under the control of Congress, despite the fact that the language of the Constitution doesn't authorize it.
There is no requirement, nor is there any justification to artificially dissembling the market into local and regional parts.
There's nothing artificial about it. All that needs to be determined is the nature of the transaction. If it's interstate in nature (that is, involves exporting an item from one state and importing it into another) then it falls under the regulation of Congress. Otherwise it doesn't. All other considerations, such as whether we're dealing with a market that's "interstate in scope", are truly artificial alterations to the language of the constitutional grant of power.
The limits are defined by the market itself.
"the nature of the transaction."
The nature of any particular transaction is irrelevant. The nature of the market is what determines applicability.
""interstate in scope", are truly artificial alterations to the language of the constitutional grant of power."
No. Refer to creation of the shoe monopoly and the various other private actions that provided motivations for the Constitutional Convention itself. Also review the quote from Madison you posted noting that the intent there was to remove State power to favor their own players over those of another State. That intent is contained in the purpose to provide market fairness and equity. That applies to the players, the people. The States were removed from the getgo.
So you say, but there's no support for that view in any of the writings of the Founders. It also doesn't square with the language of the Constitution.
Refer to creation of the shoe monopoly and the various other private actions that provided motivations for the Constitutional Convention itself.
I'd be interested in seeing whatever references you have for this. Certainly no mention of this was made in the Federalist. All motivations for the interstate commerce clause that I've read about (and I've read quite a bit) refer to the actions of state governments, not private parties.
Also review the quote from Madison you posted noting that the intent there was to remove State power to favor their own players over those of another State.
That's not what he said. He was talking about states impeding interstate commerce for their own benefits. He wasn't talking about states getting involved in any other way. But regardless, his point was clear that the motivation for the clause was not to give power (over individuals) to the federal government, but to take it from the states.
___________
"We know of no rule for construing the extent of such powers, other than is given by the language of the instrument which confers them, taken in connexion with the purposes for which they were conferred."
The words are, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations, which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals, in the actual employment of buying and selling, or of barter."
_________
Hence, "The nature of any particular transaction is irrelevant. The nature of the market is what determines applicability."
"He was talking about states impeding interstate commerce for their own benefits."
Means the same as, " the intent there was to remove State power to favor their own players over those of another State."
Basically, interstate (and foreign) commerce is any commerce which, for a particular state, would be properly described as foreign commerce if that state were an independent country.
How is the state involved if I sell a hotdog at a carnival to someone? When the hotdog was sold from a meat plant out of state to the market where I bought it then there was interstate commerce. The sale at the carnival was not. And the state had no means to favor one other state over another in the second transaction.
Also, how is the 15 year old AR in my closet involved in interstate commerce once is was sold to the end user? Sorry, I view the use of the commerce clause as a thin excuse for a naked power grab by the fedgov. You seem to favor it, but it is a prime reason that the fedgov wields more power than they were ever intended to have.
With the inclusion of services and manufacturing, that comprises the market.
"Basically, interstate (and foreign) commerce is any commerce which, for a particular state, would be properly described as foreign commerce if that state were an independent country."
No, it is defined by the scope of the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.